Posted
by
CmdrTaco
on Tuesday November 30, 2004 @10:54AM
from the your-work-in-lights dept.

Lalakis writes "The GIMP 2.2 Splash Contest is now officially
open! Competition entries should be attached to the live.gnome.org wiki
before midnight next Sunday. Submit your work and get the glory (there may be a small prize sponsored, too)."

How about having no splash screen as an option and let everyone else stare at the pretty picture for N seconds. I have so many windows open that I don't need to have something else occupying my desktop. To me, splash screens are annoying like browser popups - which I haven't seen in months thanks Mozzy that also has the alias & shortcut command option of nosplash.

True... but the problem with trying to go with an environmental variable for such an option is at what point does it stop?

There are plenty of application level settings that could be offloaded to the environment with envars permitting more uniform settings on a system... but the standardization of even a portion of such possibilities would be a nightmare. Better to leave each app alone as their own island.

Gee, its too bad Linux doesn't have a single, consolidated tree-based system for storing type-specific environment variables. It would be handy for registryng such things.

j/k.

One flat file per app is fine, thanks. Alternately, the Windows registry wouldn't be so bad if it was easy to find keys related to program X or Y (rather than its sluggish search) and the damn thing had some form of docstrings. If Python has tought me one thing, its that you can never have too many docstrings.

So my personal high scores for Hamsterball [miniclip.com] are stored in

HKCU\Software\Raptisoft\Hamsterball

Sometimes there are settings in both, one set is for LOCAL MACHINE (global) settings, the other is for CURRENT USER (custom) settings. If you have to search somewhere else to find your settings, the programmer screwed it up to

Correction... keys to any program SHOULD be stored in those two places. Unfortunately, a lot of programmers (especially those who write malicious applications) love to hide those registry entries. I'm guessing you've never had to remove Norton Antivirus manually have you?

I have tried to remove NAV / SAV manually. I removed all the files I could find, every registry key matching SAV, NAV, cc, norton, sym, etc. and still wound up with an un-installable and un-uninstallable setup of the software. This has happened to me on several machines.

They're supposed to be there, but if they're not, it doesn't make a difference how they're organized. Would you rather search every key in the registry (mine's about 10MB), or search the contents of every file on the disk to find your hidden settings?

As far as malicious apps go, that's why I have AdAware and HijackThis, along with StartupList [spywareinfo.com]. I think it's ridiculous that there are something like 50 different places that you can inject a program on Windows startup (run StartupList/complete to list them)

Not necessarily. I don't want a splash screen for something like a web browser which loads quickly, but for something like Photoshop, I find it helpful to have the splash screen to let me know that the program is, in fact, launching. It's even better when it shows progress information.

You just need to start GIMP with the --no-splash command-line option to suppress the splash screen. Or better yet, edit gimp.desktop so it works when GIMP is started from the menu. Since GIMP supports startup notification [freedesktop.org], your desktop can do whatever it wants to do to inform you about the startup.

Yes gimp already as a progress bar. Once this progress bar reaches the end, the program isn't started, instead the scrollbar starts over. When it gets to the end again it starts over. It repeats quite a few times. This progress bar doesn't exactly show progress just shows that something is going on.

Actually, some splash screens are good for something. Think about Java programs that have to be runtime compiled, they usually take long times to load. In a case like that, a splash screen is extremely useful.

Splash screens were developed to show loading of application, and branding of application.

I hate the M$ office splashscreens [haha been a looong time since I saw a M$ splashscreen!, the open officeone is required at the startup time (hopefully 1.5 will stop that) is exagerrated because all office startup dlls are precached.

You must not start the GIMP much. Otherwise you would immediately know that the only reason the splash screen is there is to show you a progression as it starts up. It isn't there as a time waster, it doesn't keep you from working any longer than you would have to wait if it wasn't there. Having something pretty to see while it is telling you its startup progress is perfectly fine.

I don't think the parent was off topic : this is Slashdot and there are trolls who may profit from this open Wiki page so, be sure there will be many flavoured submissions, including the goatse, tubgirl, lemon party, GNAA manifestoes...It's a serious question and even if it could be seen as either frightening or funny, I do NOT think it's off topic.

Something I've liked in the past from compiling development versions of the Gimp are the development splash screens [gimp.org]. Frequently containing giant photos of bugs (for squashing, obviously), fake news report screengrabs or some other warped aspects of the programmers' humour, they often show that programmer art isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Although a couple of them were astoundingly crude - but I think that was intentional.:-)

1. I was scared - been playing Doom3 all day, I'm a bit jumpy2. Denial - I thought I imagined it3. Relief - I'm not crazy4. Disgust - I just wasted a few minutes of my life describing an emotional journey spawned by a few moving pixels on/.

GIMP Tutorial:1) Create image2) Right click on image to do anything with it, or use shortcut key (which is shown in the right click menu)

Done!

They don't need to emulate photoshop. Just because you're too retarded to learn two different GUIs doesn't mean Gimp's interface is broken. I get everything done with it that I need, with no problems. Granted, they could use a little help with getting their plugins to all be parameterized and provide previews. Other than that Gimp works very well.

Eh, sorry then, just assumed it was. Posts like that on Gimp stories are usually trolls. In spite of that, I usually agree with them:(

The Gimp GUI is on of the most crap-tastic ones I've ever seen. Sad, because it's a nice program, but I can never get anyone to use for any length of time because the GUI is so frustrating and non-intuitive.

I'm not the parent, but one of my major issues is the lack of previews for filters, applying an un-sharp mask (as an example) to an image, with no preview box is extremely time-consuming, and a major issue in my opinion.

I started out in graphics with gimp. I had enough interest in pixelling to want to continue, to learn the roped and put up with the difficulties. I'd been TOLD that graphics was hard, and it was tedious indeed.

Then I used Photoshop, ready to scoff at the proprietary solution costing so many thousands and doing no more than gimp. Within 2 weeks I'd gone out and bought photoshop because no matter how much you listen to someone else's experience with a program, there is nothing more revealing than using it yourself. Gimp feels nearly feature complete, but in the same way a large rock is feature complete with a set of six various sized hammers. When you need to hit something and do it right, the hammers let you do it exactly how you want to.

That's just like saying that the Java people should work on building a language more like Python, instead of polishing Java. [...] This GUI is not buggy, it doesn't lack important features, but they made the choice to not copy Photoshop, and that's what it's all about.

This is true with some features (or lack of), but others are just common sense usability, for example: GIMP's lack previews for most filters.

There's a difference between doing occasional jobs in Gimp and trying to use it professionally i.e. for 10 hours a day. I pity anyone who works for a company that refuses to pay for Photoshop and makes their employees use Gimp. The underlying engine in Gimp is probably good enough for a lot of work but the user interface is just plain horrible when compared to Photoshop.

Or when compared to Paintshop Pro, Ulead, etc, etc, etc. Gimp has the worst interface of almost any program, not just image editors. While they are at it, change the name too-calling a product GIMP is just plain stupid and childish.

Eh? Gimp isn't a drawing program. There are plenty of drawing programs but not packages that do what Photoshop and Gimp do. And I'm talking about graphics professionals. These are people who use Windows, Macs and in many cases came from a Unix background years ago (eg. SGIs). I don't think I've ever complained about Gimp online before and I really don't know what you are talking about and what is the matter with you.

Did it ever occur to you that X still has a lot that needs fixing and that's why people are complaining all the time? For one thing, dual monitor support is kludgy at best. I don't want to see the desktop split accross the two like I have a single large monitor, and I don't want to fuss around for 3 days trying to get even that to work.

I'm pulling for linux development just as much as the next person here, but if we're going to see linux on the desktop, then it needs to have those problems that people comp

You should consider to setup X to have two screens then. GIMP supports this quite nicely and will remember on which screen you want it's windows to appear. It also allows you to move windows between the screens (which is a functionality that the WM should offer actually).

Most people don't really need it, but more than 8-bit per pixel color is coming soon. Next release (2.4) will add color management capabilities and the one after that (3.0), planned for the next fall, will add higher bit depth, layer effects and pretty much everything you want (all that because of the GEGL library intergration).

Unfortunately, there isn't a formal roadmap at the moment for gimp 2.4, but you can find a lot of info about what you should expect from gimp 3.0. Look here [mail-archive.com] and search google for more.

What's the problem with text layer tools? Everyone seems very happy with them and you shouldn't expect a change anytime soon...

Sadly, looking at the entries thus far there is a distincy lack of good entries... don't people realise that half the point of a splash screen image is to at least either represent or showcase the application in question?

The current entries are all simply photographs slapped onto the template. What rubbish.

I look forward to revisiting the wiki site in a few days when the real artists amongst the FOSS world have had a crack of the whip, ra

I'd prefer to be able to use it while it loads the bigger things like plugins in the background.

Waiting (about 30 seconds?) is a pain when you only want to edit an 16 pixel icon especially.

p.s. aren't message boxes also awful too, interrupting work and stealing focus... oh, I had typed more but lost it all after gimp loaded up and changed focus while I was typing and looking at keyboard.

Management types aren't likely to admit that they know what BDSM even means... or that they spent nearly three and a half hours last night trying to download the latest installment of "Pain in the Ass."

When I think about contests and Gimp, I think abouthttp://contest.gimp.org/. Was a lot of fun browsing through the entries and submitting work. To bad its now defunc since 1999. Even so its long gone I kind of still miss it, always makes me think of good old times, I guess I am just getting really old...

The contest page [gnome.org] says that the entries must be available under a GPL license. I hope everyone remembers that the GPL requires source to be provided, and that "source" is defined as the preferred form form making modifications to the work. For GIMP-produced images, the source is clearly the.xcf file. That means that either the.xcf file has to always accompany the.png or.jpg version, or at least be on the same FTP or web site, or else there has to be an offer, good for three years, to give the.xcf fil

Let me put it simply: Airbrush sucks. I need something better.The task is preparing gray-to-heightmap images from photos for later 3D engraving using a CNC engraving machine. I "spray" more white using airbrush where the image in the background is higher, leave dark where the bottom should stay deep. The effect is very neat for small details or simple shapes. But it really sucks when it comes to large areas. The fact that the output is slightly grainy is not that bad - a single pass of blur and the "grains" are gone. Much harder is achieving bigger smoothly curved surfaces - just try to spray a regular flat gray area (using white), it's just as hard as to get a smooth gradient - you get low-depth, several pixels wide depressions, bumps etc that are very hard to remove.Regular "gradient" is not an option either - I need shapes much more sophisticated than regular "spherical" or "shapeburst" - maybe something like Bezier curved gradients could help...?

Over-zealous parents and school teachers are a serious barrier to the adoption of anything in America.

It is not a good reason to change the name simply because people can't accept that the words don't carry the meaning, but how you use them does. After all, check out the latest TV trailers for "Meet the Fockers" (Sequel to Meet the Parents). How can that be socially acceptable title (it may yet not be) and "The Gimp" not be?

I don't think the problem is necessarily the association with Pulp Fiction's character, 'Gimp'... but rather that the word gimp actually means 'disabled'.

Why not just call it:'NotAsGoodAsPhotoshop' and see if that helps the adoption. Using your logic, it shouldn't matter, as it's not the meaning the words currently have, but instead the ones you want to give them.

Seriously, the name GIMP makes it sound like the software knows that it will make you unproductive and is warning you ahead of time.

Free software is often written to scratch an itch the programmers might have. So was the GIMP. If you can use it, fine; if you cannot, fine too.

If you want to give it a different name, grab a copy off of cvs.gimp.org and distribute it under a different name. There's lots of people doing that on eBay. (Well, perhaps not lots, but both The GIMP and Project Gutenberg books have been sold on eBay under different names, presumably to draw attention away from the fact that